UK Terrorism Threat Level

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is important that we as a country lead by example. Clearly, we stand in solidarity with France and the French. I do not want to be drawn into discussing the comments that other leaders may have made, but we remain, as an international family, in solidarity with those people and against terrorism.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My thoughts too are with those who have suffered in France and Austria. I have two brief questions. The Minister did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about police officers. He asked what was the net increase. Is the Minister saying that the 6,000 figure is a net increase? Clarity on that would be useful.

The Statement towards the end pays tribute to the police who put themselves in harm’s way every day to defend the public. During lockdown the police are far more exposed than they ordinarily are to the nutcases out to cause trouble. Who is watching out for the police? What extra precautions are being taken? The police are now more vulnerable because of the exposure than in normal times. I think this factor must weigh heavily with policymakers and those holding the resource bag.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think the noble Lord will have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary talk about her revulsion at people who seek to attack the police while they are trying to maintain the policing by consent that we hold so dear in this country. In terms of who is protecting the police, they certainly have our support and we will do anything that we can to ensure that they are safe, notwithstanding some tragedies that we have seen recently. In terms of the increase in police numbers, I think I was quite clear in saying that we are approaching the 6,000 figure; we are certainly not at it yet, but we are not far off. I have elected to provide the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with more detail. It is not a net increase; it is a gross increase number. I will provide a breakdown rather than trying to make it up on the hop.

Covid-19: Christmas Breaches of Restrictions

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Policing by consent is something that we as a society not only want to uphold, but hold very dear. Policing is not always in that vein in other countries across the world. In a statement issued on his website on 28 October, the PCC clarified:

“West Midlands Police will continue to use good sense”


in enforcing the rules

“appropriately and proportionately. That means that they have focussed on large and flagrant breaches of the rules.”

He called at that time for clarity on the rules, which is very important for the Government.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, David Jamieson is a star among the police and crime commissioners. The Government make the rules; the job of the police is to enforce them. Is the Minister aware that the cuts to West Midlands Police mean that it can focus on only very large gatherings? Can the Minister guarantee that the Christmas guidance will arrive before Boxing Day? The police do not want to spoil anybody’s fun, but they must halt the spread of the virus. I declare that my wife and I are members of the West Midlands Police family.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can confirm that the Home Office has provided additional surge funding. I agree with the other points he made, certainly regarding the guidance. The pattern of the virus changes, going up exponentially and falling; we must respond to what it is doing at the time.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, a walk around the centre of London after dark reveals that large parts of the city are wholly unilluminated. Why are the lights off? Is it that most Londoners are getting an early night? I think not. The fact is that many high-end properties are unoccupied and are used as investment vehicles by those who regard London as a safe haven for their money, often unlawfully acquired. In September 2016 the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, launched an inquiry into the impact of foreign investment flooding into London’s housing market. Lest my submission be considered too London-centric—I declare an interest as a resident of central London—such investment has also been going on in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, among other cities. Mayor Khan said on launching the inquiry that we all need to be reassured that dirty money is not flooding into the property market.

Property that is the subject of a UWO does not have to be real property, but real property has the advantage of being less easy to dispose of informally and quickly. Your Lordships have already heard me and others discuss the importance of tightening up the provisions in relation to compliance with UWOs to deal with the potential for evading the orders. In this context, I am particularly concerned about property owned by overseas companies. On 17 March 2016, the Land Registry published the fact that it had registered 100,000 freehold and leasehold properties in the name of overseas companies. I should make it clear that the list excludes private individuals, UK companies, UK companies with an overseas address and charities. Noble Lords may be aware that unlike in most countries, there are absolutely no restrictions on foreign ownership of residential property in the United Kingdom.

Do we really think that all this property is being acquired with clean money? Are solicitors and agents complying with anti-money laundering provisions? I know that tightening up those provisions is the subject of later amendments. I read last week in the Times that only five people have been convicted of money laundering in the 10 years since the legislation was apparently tightened. The Law Society is on record as saying:

“Compliance with money laundering obligations is one of the greatest challenges for solicitors in the UK today”.


What about the obligations of estate agents? Of these properties owned by overseas companies, how many are polluted by dirty money? I mentioned at Second Reading the envelope tax. This was a reference to the super-rich being prepared to pay something like £218,000 a year in tax rather than identify who owns property. I asked the Minister whether the Government were happy with this state of affairs. Her answer was that UWOs will,

“make it easier for our law enforcement agencies to investigate money laundering in the London property market and recover the proceeds of crime”.—[Official Report, 9/3/17; col. 1519.]

She also mentioned the importance of ensuring that lawyers, estate agents and other professionals comply with their money laundering obligations. Apparently the Treasury will in due course publish its findings in relation to the supervisory regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to his kleptocracy tour in his speech at Second Reading, while the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, cited the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption, which takes the view that more than £4 billion-worth of properties have been bought with suspicious wealth. My noble friend Lord Patten endorsed all the comments that were made at Second Reading about the devastating effect of dirty money on the occupancy of London properties. The Minister said that,

“the Government intend to publish a call for evidence, seeking views on a new register of overseas companies that own property in the UK”.

She said that the Government,

“hope to do so shortly and will then introduce the relevant legislation when parliamentary time allows”.—[Official Report, 9/3/17; col. 1519.]

As I have explained in relation to other amendments, I do not think that parliamentary time is likely to be available in the foreseeable future, so we must seize the legislative opportunity as it now presents itself.

London is in danger of becoming a safe haven for dirty money. This is partly because of our reputation for maintaining the rule of law and because we are generally regarded as a good home for foreign investment. I certainly would not want to deter investment, particularly in the uncertain economic times that lie ahead, but I deprecate this assault on the London property market, the effect it is having on Londoners and how it is adding to the pressure that exists in the London property market, which falls particularly harshly on those seeking to acquire their first properties. We should do everything we can to make these provisions effective.

The legislation currently provides that the court must be satisfied that a respondent is a PEP, has been involved in serious crime, or that there is at least a reasonable suspicion of involvement. The amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, who unfortunately is unwell, would add to that,

“the respondent has a financial interest in land or property in England and Wales … registered in the name of an overseas company”.

This would make it easier for the agencies to obtain a UWO in circumstances where they do not have much evidence of involvement in serious crime or the respondent is not a PEP, but they have suspicions about the source of money used in the acquisition of property. My noble friend Lord Leigh referred to his familiarity with questions being posed by the Revenue. The High Court would still have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent’s lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient, but this should not be too high a bar to surmount.

Would this create any unfairness? I do not see why. If the property has been acquired with honest money, an explanation could be provided that would comply with the order. I ask the Minister: how, if at all, will UWOs be used to get at the problem that has been identified by me and a number of other noble Lords? Will she explain why she objects, if she does, to this amendment, or at the very least explain what improvements will be made to deal with this very real problem? Her answer may be partially to rely on the very recently proposed government Amendment 21. I am not sure that that does the trick. This a very important point and a real opportunity. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but it gives me the opportunity to raise the point that I wanted to raise today anyway following Second Reading. I agree with everything that the noble Lord just said. From memory, I think the figure is that 9.3% of the properties in Westminster are owned by overseas companies from jurisdictions that maintain secrecy. That is a huge percentage of the properties in one local authority area.

The issue I want to raise is that the money comes into this country from somewhere. Basically, it must come through the banks. At Second Reading I made the point:

“As far as I know, no bank has ever been prosecuted in the UK for laundering corrupt wealth from another country”.—[Official Report, 9/3/17; col. 1487.]


The Minister responded by saying:

“The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, talked about fines on banks in the UK. He raised the issue of banks in the UK not being penalised for laundering funds from overseas. I have a huge list of fines, which I will not read out today, because it would take up valuable time in responding … I will send it to him … and place a copy in the Library”.—[Official Report, 9/3/17; cols. 1520-21.]


When the noble Baroness wrote to Members who had participated at Second Reading, she neglected to mention anything about that exchange, so I contacted her office just to remind them. I was sent a letter, which I presume others would have had, dated 21 March. Attached to it were details of some of the most significant fines imposed in recent years on financial institutions with a presence in the UK. They related to tax fraud, money laundering and financial crimes. The vast pile of papers that the Minister said she had at Second Reading amounts to four sheets, but only three banks in the UK are mentioned: Barclays, Deutsche Bank and Sonali. Not one of them has been prosecuted for money laundering. They have had fines levied on them by the Financial Conduct Authority, but not one has been found guilty of money laundering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

The Minister is missing the point, although I am sure she is not doing so deliberately. No bank has been prosecuted. That is the background to the question I asked. I did not ask about cosy deals with the Financial Conduct Authority—like those reported today with Tesco and the one with Rolls-Royce, which I referred to at Second Reading—to have deferred prosecutions, so that they pay but do not get prosecuted. I asked about banks being prosecuted. The one way to stop or curtail this, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, is to get them where it hurts, not with cosy deals. These fines are not the result of prosecutions. If she is implying that, she is wrong, and is close to misleading the Committee. I am not asking about deals; I am asking about prosecutions which take place in court, not through cosy deals and a fine from the Financial Conduct Authority.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Lord does not think that I have ever tried to mislead the House. I talked about fines, but where a bank was found to have committed a criminal offence, a prosecution could be undertaken. Investigations and prosecutions are a matter for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. I take the point that he is making, but this is open to law enforcement. Last month, a £163 million fine was issued to Deutsche Bank, and I would suggest that hitting them where it hurts probably involves hitting them in their pockets. It is open to law enforcement to prosecute banks, but I take the noble Lord’s point in that, today, I know of no prosecutions of banks. But the fines regime is in place.

I am very grateful for the amendment but hope that my noble friend has been assured that there is not a gap in existing powers that would justify extending UWOs in the way proposed. I hope he will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate and for the general support for what lay behind this amendment, which is a widespread concern about the London property market in particular and the degree to which it is clear that corrupt money has entered it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made a number of important points—particularly that I am not learned. He was also correct to say that the word “or” was missing from the amendment, and made some other drafting suggestions. He was also right to suggest that this is not a panacea, but it was not designed to be. The amendment was intended to provoke the sort of debate we have had and to ask the Government whether they are truly satisfied that the evil we have identified is being answered, and in particular whether anything in the Bill can be used to deal with the problem.

My noble friend the Minister has said that the provision covers those who are PEPs within the definition of the Bill or those suspected of serious criminality. But what, I ask, about those who may not easily be defined as being “suspected of serious criminality” but are in fact gangsters? What of those who have high office but do not come within the definition of PEPs? With many of the properties, it will be difficult to determine precisely who owns them. All that we ask for is an unexplained wealth order—it is not a criminal offence; it is a civil procedure which results, if there is no adequate explanation, in civil recovery. That, I suggest, will help deter the incursion of corrupt money. The provisions contain safeguards on self-incrimination and compensation. Let us not be too pusillanimous about this. My noble friend said that she had received my request for information about the envelope tax at Second Reading and she has again, but she has not yet replied. On the face of it, that is in stark contradiction to the policy that underlies the UWOs.

We will miss a legislative opportunity if we do not do something through the Bill to sort out the problem we have identified. I hope that my noble friend will speak to her officials and be satisfied that there is no gap, no lacuna, in this approach.

[Lord Rooker]

Perhaps through the noble Lord, as the Minister talks to her officials, I can invite her to watch two films: “From Russia with Cash” and “From Ukraine with Cash”. They are on the same CD. If she does not have access to them, I will provide her with a copy. They spell out that there is a serious problem.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful for that intervention, which supports the point that these effective owners may not be PEPs within the definition and it may be difficult to pinpoint serious criminality. We must do something about this. I look to the Minister to provide a better solution than exists at the moment. If not, we will be letting the country down and letting Londoners down, particularly young, aspirant Londoners. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Commons for their work on the Bill. I will single out Dominic Raab, Margaret Hodge and Tom Brake.

The Bill does not reach all the parts that need reaching on financial crime, but it is progress. It remains the case that not a single UK financial institution has faced any criminal charges as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. Only individual employees have been charged. The employers—Barclays, USB and Deutsche Bank—have not faced charges, and we have the ludicrous position that it is still not illegal under current UK corporate liability law for companies to mislead their auditors.

I shall say one word on Brexit. As we seek new trading arrangements and relationships, it is crucial that our corporate liability regime is broadly equivalent to that of our major trading partners. In this respect, it is very worrying that the recent case, already referred to, of Rolls-Royce, reported extensively in the Financial Times on 21 and 22 January, might affect our trade deals. For directors to use nearly £700 million of shareholder funds to escape personal liability for their actions or the actions of those they supervise is questionable. The Serious Fraud Office must clean this up—but in view of my previous parliamentary run-in with Rolls-Royce in 1980, I will say no more.

I shall make four brief points. The first is on unexplained wealth orders. They are proportional and measured and are subject to judicial oversight. In respect of overseas politically exposed persons, they are really useful as they do not require suspicion of serious criminality. The key issue is the laundering of money from overseas in the UK. As the noble Lord said, it should be easier for UK law enforcement to investigate and act on the wealth of kleptocrats and corrupt officials.

In February last year, I was on the first UK kleptocracy tour. I was the only parliamentarian amongst the researchers, campaigners and journalists—but it was on a Thursday. The tour was specifically in respect of Russians and Ukrainians buying property in London. I will give two examples from the eight tour stops. We started in Whitehall at the property lying above the Farmers Club at 4 Whitehall Court. Flats 138A and 138B were purchased by Igor Shuvalov, ranked the fifth most powerful official in Russia, for a sum of £11.44 million—some 80 times his salary. The Russian register of companies shows that he and his spouse have the beneficial ownership of the company, Sova Real Estate, which owns the apartments. They operate care of Tulloch & Co., Hill Street, London.

We were treated at each address to the story of who allegedly lived there, how much was paid, who owned it, where the money came from, and a magical mystery tour through the British Overseas Territories and local authority files on planning applications. We parked outside Witanhurst Place, Hampstead; a home second only to Buckingham Palace in size. It was built originally by a British soap merchant in the 1920s and is now worth £300 million. It was purchased through a British Virgin Islands company by Andrey Guryev, then a Russian senator, who in 11 years never included it in his asset declaration.

My second point is on the anti-money-laundering rules. The new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion in the Bill, which has already been referred to, should be applied to economic crimes such as money laundering. This is an essential next step. I often wonder why more attention is not paid to the lawyers and estate agents involved in property sales such as those to which I have just referred. They are usually smart, blue-chip operations that do not like the searchlight of sunshine on their activities. As far as I know, no bank has ever been prosecuted in the UK for laundering corrupt wealth from another country.

We need to catch up with the United States’ anti-money-laundering legislation regime and—wait for it—the EU directive on human trafficking and money laundering, which has a corporate liability formula stronger by far than the current UK regime. The UK Government promised to catch up but never have. Is it not ironic that we are going to catch up with the EU as a result of Brexit?

On 18 June 2015, I initiated a short debate in Grand Committee on the Transparency International report on how corrupt capital is used to buy property in the UK. I want to remind the Minister of just one recommendation in the report. This is not the first time I have raised this with the Government—these are not new issues. The recommendation was touched on by my noble friend from the Front Bench. It is that there should be greater co-ordination between the 27 anti-money-laundering supervisors in the UK.

I got nowhere with the Minister in the Moses Room or with his letter afterwards. This issue still needs to be addressed. The lack of co-ordination means that there is a failure to identify risks; the approach to enforcement is inconsistent, and is not transparent or effective; and there are conflicts of interest. As my noble friend said, 15 of the supervisors are lobby groups for the sectors that they supervise. Only seven control for institutional conflicts of interest and, in a survey, one even admitted to carrying out no targeted anti-money-laundering legislation monitoring at all during 2013. What are the Government doing about this and why is it not in the Bill?

Public procurement—this is my third point—is not in the Bill and ought to be. The Government appear to have a blind spot regarding corruption in public procurement. However, the NHS and local government are potential massive risks in the awarding of contracts. In the local government case, of course, it owns very substantial physical assets. At the Government’s anti-corruption summit in 2016, they committed to introduce a conviction check process to prevent corrupt bidders winning public contracts. This promise has not been implemented. Furthermore, there is no public information on its progress.

I have a proposal—I have come with a positive suggestion. The Government should ask their own anti-corruption champion, Sir Eric Pickles, to conduct a review at national level to assess the risks of corruption in local government and the NHS, with particular reference to procurement. Very high standards are observed by councillors and officers, but they are undermined by cases of misuse of position.

A Transparency International report on the conditions for local government corruption found that the following were present: low-level transparency, poor external scrutiny, networks of cronyism, lack of resources to investigate, outsourcing of public services, significant sums of money in play, a decline in the robustness to resist corruption and the reduced capacity of our local press. Sir Eric should be asked to look into this area.

My final point is to pay tribute to Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital and author of Red Notice. I have not met Mr Browder, although I was present at a meeting in the Commons in 2015 where he spoke. I had previously read Red Notice and said at the meeting that I shed a tear as I read the part of it relating to the death of his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. I cannot see how anyone would not need a tissue as they read the account of his murder in a Russian prison.

I salute Mr Browder for his dedication and perseverance in trying to bring those guilty of the murder of his lawyer to justice—and for his sheer bloody-mindedness. Chasing them legally around the world, and now in this Bill, is a must. The Minister must also confirm what was said in the Commons: that the Government will use the powers in the Bill. I support it.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response to my request at Second Reading for a view about each of the 10 tests. I am quite happy to accept these. What I resent is the fact that someone can stand up in our free Parliament and equate the present status of this country with the Stasi, where there was no rule of law, no independent judges, no independent commissioners and no free parliament. Let us have a reasonably decent debate about this.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, if I may just follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, my view, having studied these issues for a very large number of years now, is that the Bill as drafted provides ample protections against invasions of privacy. Indeed, they have that kind of specificity that the courts readily understand. I am not opposed to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, but I respectfully say to my noble friends that the other amendments in this group, Amendments 1 and 2, add absolutely nothing of substance. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in saying that I regard it as outrageous to equate our situation today with Nineteen Eighty-Four. The idea that we have a “Room 101” in this country and cameras in every bedroom—which is what it says in Nineteen Eighty-Four—is completely misleading. My charitable view is that it demonstrates that my noble friend has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I say to all Members of this House, including my noble friends—forgive me for taking up time, but maybe the beginning is the time to say it—let us get this Committee stage done as quickly as we possibly can and not spend our time on large numbers of otiose amendments.

National Identity Cards

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The estimated costs of following through on the original proposals, which began under consultation in 2003, were enacted in 2006 and implemented in 2009, were estimated in 2010 at just over £840 million.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I accept that the plans for ID cards got out of hand from when they started, at the time when I first went to the Home Office. But the Minister, as Home Office Minister, must know that this country is one of the easiest to work in illegally. That is one of the greatest pull factors for the merchants sometimes of death who traffic in people. Couple that with no ID card and it is money in the bank for these people. First we should stop it being made so easy to work illegally. That goes hand in glove with securing people’s identity. The two things should be done together.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, the introduction of the new Immigration Act stamped down on the scope of illegal working in this country. It is not considered appropriate that that should be combined with any system of identity cards.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, it is clear that technological developments have greatly enhanced the capacity of Governments, companies and citizens to know more about individuals and undertake surveillance, interception and data collection. As such, the internet has become the front line in the contemporary debate about privacy and security. Such developments, though, as many have said, have created new avenues for serious crime by individuals, gangs and nations on an international basis. This Bill is part of our—I stress “our”—attempt to square the circle between the needs of security and privacy. It is a Bill I welcome and support.

I served on the RUSI Independent Surveillance Review. Our report, A Democratic Licence to Operate, showed that we need not abandon the values that are most important to us as citizens in order to protect our society. Current legislation providing the basis for the interception of communications is less than 20 years old, but it predates Google, Facebook and Twitter, so we are right to refresh and update the tools of the state. The threat is clear. First, international organised crime knows no boundaries. Secondly, information and communications technology spans borders, but Governments must be able to protect their sovereign territory. We have to meet a challenge: in an open society the secret part of the state has to remain secret to protect the openness, but it has to be regulated. The state should always be reluctant to invade the privacy of its citizens, and those who do this vital work should do so with a feeling of unease.

The RUSI panel set out the 10 tests, which I shall come to—I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said—which legislation and government should meet. First, I will refer to the private sector. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and other internet companies continue to lobby on this Bill. They could never have started up their commercial, profit-making businesses in autocratic societies such as Russia, Iran or China, to name just three. Our open, democratic system, based on the rule of law, which enabled them to start up and operate, is under threat. As such, they should not demand no-go areas for regulated law enforcement officers who seek out serious organised criminals. Law-enforcement agencies should never be in the position of not being able to seek, or ask about, information. This is not the same as having a back door into the servers of companies.

I sincerely hope that as the Bill proceeds—we have a way to go yet—we will explain that we do not conduct mass surveillance in the UK. Indeed, it is not done in the USA. Collection of bulk data, most of which are never even read, does not constitute mass surveillance. In general, I prefer Ministers to be involved in the warrants that are required for interception and surveillance. There is a degree of accountability that I think is an important aspect. But I do appreciate that this is not enough. There has to be a judicial role and oversight has to be strengthened. Indeed, I would want to be convinced that we have oversight of the oversight. We must always ask, “Who watches the watchers?”. The Bill attempts to do this. I note that the Government will bring forward amendments that were promised following the debates in the Commons.

It is amazing what is already being done but is never reported. Among our evidence sessions the RUSI panel held a round table with the Information Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Surveillance Commissioner and the Chief Surveillance Inspector. I do not think that any of their published reports make the bestseller lists but they are there for us—parliamentarians and Select Committees—to read and question. That is absolutely crucial.

Unfortunately, however, in the past some public authorities have used powers which many believe they should not even have had access to. When RIPA 2000 went through, nobody raised the prospect of local authorities using it in respect of rubbish collection or access to school places. That has been stopped but it gave the whole thing a very bad, nasty taste. The powers in the Bill should be limited to the most serious issues affecting our society, with very strict rules about the process to be used.

Let us not beat about the bush or sugar-coat the issue: the Bill is about intrusion into privacy. The public have to be convinced that all the actions are legal and are the right actions to take on behalf of the public. This is not easy when some aspects must remain secret. The RUSI panel declared the 10 tests which Parliament, government and the public should apply when considering the conditions under which the police and intelligence and security agencies can intrude upon the privacy of the citizen. They are set out on pages 104 and 105 of our report. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, listed the 10 tests. Between now and Committee, will the Minister provide a very short paper on how the Government think that the Bill meets the 10 tests? That will save a lot of time in Committee, because otherwise we will have debates for hours. They are legitimate tests to which the Government should respond. The panel spent a lot of time working on this issue. Such a response would not be too difficult and would considerably ease the Bill’s passage.

The Bill itself is a democratic licence from Parliament to government. The report’s title is correct: it is a licence to intrude but it is a democratic licence based on regulation and oversight. The Government’s role is to protect the nation, its citizens, our way of life and the values we live by. Our tolerance must not be abused by intolerance that seeks our destruction. We have to be careful that we do not allow our tolerance to lead to our own destruction. But, as the RUSI report shows, and as was backed up by other reports, we can maintain the values that are most important to us as citizens in order to protect our society. This Bill makes a very important contribution to this aim.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Let me be clear: Clause 217 is not concerned with warrants but with technical capability notices. They precede any question of a warrant. A warrant or a notice would proceed under a different part of the Bill. I do not want to elaborate on this because the Bill will be before this House in the very near future, at which time these details can be considered. However, to pick up on the noble Baroness’s last point, on companies that are overseas but have a presence here and provide services here, the warrant does extend to those companies. With regard to companies overseas, the warrant may be served there. They may have an answer that it is not reasonably practicable to respond because, for example, their own domestic law forbids them doing so. However, the Government have already initiated discussions with the United States of America to come to an agreement on reciprocal enforcement of these relevant and important provisions.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Before scare stories about this Bill start being run, can the Minister confirm that there is no case whatsoever for unlimited powers? One strength of the Bill is that it strengthens the oversight of the security agencies, to give people the confidence that those who are doing the work are being watched, and the watchers are also being watched on behalf of the public in order, therefore, to keep us safe.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I entirely concur with the noble Lord’s observations. The introduction of the double-lock mechanism in the context of the warrant underlines the importance of these developments. When the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, responded to the Statement on the Bill in November last year, he observed that it appeared that, in broad terms, the Bill had struck the difficult balance between public interest and privacy.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a privilege to be present for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mair. I hope that he will much enjoy his membership of this House.

This is my fourth public show of support for HS2. I spoke in the take note debate in October 2013 and in the Second Reading of the preparation Bill in November 2013. Then in 2015 for some reason I got a bit annoyed at a very home counties-centric, anti-HS2 essay in the Financial Times from one of its contributing editors, and it published my response in its columns. I was not alone in my view. Of course, those contributions and this one today disqualify me from being a member of your Lordships’ committee on the Bill. Indeed, only anyone without a view ever expressed need apply. That is an absolutely crazy way to legislate. We are all disqualified if we have expressed an opinion at any time. We are all fingered—whether you are for or against, it does not matter; you cannot serve on the Bill. I do not think that that is a very good way to legislate.

In some ways, I sometimes feel that I live in a country which has lost its nerve on serious projects, whether they be roads, railways, airports or indeed the potential for new factories on green fields. England has, at most, 12% to 13% of its land area built on. We are not short of land.

I just want to make a general point before I go into a little detail on one aspect. I take second place to nobody in supporting proper health and safety rules, regulation on the right to trade union representation, equality in the workplace, and equal pay and training opportunities, but I think that we have gone mad on consultation throughout the whole of society. That was one of the biggest shocks I had when I came into government after being an MP for more than 20 years; we are consultation mad, especially on planning.

On major projects we are even worse. As someone has just said, in the main those major projects are for the next generation and the ones to follow. They are not for today’s generation. We set the decision-making at the lowest level nearest the project, which means that nothing happens for years and years. Those wanting to invest walk away, the orders are not made, the factories shrink, industries decline and the rot sets in. Does steel ring any bells? That is the pattern of what has happened in the last few decades.

I know that there are exceptions, and of course we are dealing with one today, but there are urgent projects on energy and transport which are needed for the future and on which we have lost decades as they get shunted into a cul-de-sac. The nation and its people are the losers, because these projects are for future generations, not today’s vested interests; it is tomorrow’s people’s interests that we have to look at.

After listening to 1,500 petitions in the Commons—the elected House—substantial additions have been made to the Bill and, in any event, I understand that massive changes have been made outside the Commons Select Committee process. Tunnelling has gone from less than 9% to 20% of the route, and it is on the record that the elected House voted 399 to 44 for the Bill. So why does this unelected House have to go through the same process? Ours should be the secondary Chamber aspect—the big-picture view. We should be looking at what has been done in the House of Commons and whether it has ticked all the key boxes. Has it made sure that all the key issues are being dealt with? We in this House do not represent anybody—we do not boast of doing that—but collectively we represent the nation as a whole, and I think that we should take that much wider view. I do not think that our focus should be on the specific field boundaries and hamlets, nor indeed on individuals. It was the role of the elected House to do that. We should ask whether the key issues have been taken care of.

There is a list of several key issues. I shall not go into into detail on any of any of them but they include capacity, costs, jobs, skills, growth opportunities, compensation for those affected and connectivity—all of which are very important. I just want to mention the environment. Two hundred and eighty hectares of new woodland will be created, seven major rivers will be diverted, there will be 7 million square metres of landscape planting and 17 million square metres of habitat will be created. I had to smile when I saw the next one on the list. There will be over 300 kilometres of new replacement hedgerow as a result of HS2. I was reminded that in the 1990s there was a six-year period when farmers grubbed up 25% of the hedgerows in England. I do not recall any rows or moans from the NGOs at that time. Two hundred kilometres of noise barrier are planned. All phase 1 stations will receive a BREEAM excellent rating and there will be no net loss of biodiversity from phase 1.

If I have one comment on the list provided by HS2 in its briefing, it relates to the BREEAM rating for the stations. “Excellent” sounds good but it is not the top rating; it is only the fourth out of five. “Outstanding” is the top BREEAM rating. We can be proud of BREEAM assessments, which were invented in the UK by the Building Research Establishment more than 20 years ago and are used in more than 70 countries. More than 2 million buildings in the world have now been assessed under BREEAM. My view is: why are none of the stations outstanding? Why have we settled for the fourth grade, not the fifth? That is my one minor criticism. It is a world standard and we ought to aim for the top of the ratings.

Around the country, business leaders, the CBI, the chambers of commerce and local government leaders can see plans being made now due to the Government’s determination to press ahead. This is a reality in many parts of the country. It is becoming clear that they do not have to be located on the line or at the station to see and reap the benefits; there is a genuine widespread benefit to infrastructure and investment in the country.

It is unusual for Governments of both major parties to have grabbed the issue and seen it through, and I obviously welcome that. It is a surprise to some—and very good to see, let us make no bones about it—that the flakiness once present on my side seems to have disappeared altogether, because there was flakiness both in this House and the other place. This genuine joint effort on an all-party basis will have a genuine effect, and has had already, on investment in capacity in skills and training. That can provide a massive boost for the country, which has in some ways has lost its nerve on other big issues. Crossrail is there, but it is buried, it is not in the public psyche at present, and in any case it is a London-centric thing. But this one could capture the imagination and give a boost to confidence in other big infrastructure projects, for which we are crying out and which have been lost for years.

I am not at all critical of those who oppose or who use the process for delay. As I said, I criticise the process, but my view is that as it is there, use it. I think it should be changed. Some people want to delay or even thwart the project. It will be for the committee to assess, for example, local authorities who arrive with more demands on detail but, when you check their top line, it is, “We are opposed”. The other day, I was looking at the computers working away on all the stuff that has come in in the past week. One of the first things I saw was: “We are opposed to this in principle”, followed by a big list of demands in detail. It is for the committee to look at that.

I have read all the material, and, in the main, the NGOs say that they are not opposed or, indeed, that they accept the case. But then they make a whole list of demands which would make the project—I will not say impossible, but the Commons has already looked at this. That is the point: the Commons has looked at this already. Something else that jumped out of my file was that, two years ago now, in February 2014, we all received the Institute of Directors’ quality flagship policy journal, Big Picture, with a very anti-HS2 cover story. The article inside stated that members were against, but, as far as I could see—and I checked yesterday—it did not quote a single named member of the IoD. But it was a massive propaganda piece against HS2.

I think that we have to get away from some of the excessive consultation, which reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. That will always encourage reaction against the process and pressure for inaction. I am not in favour of riding over people’s views—I do not mean that at all—but, nevertheless, we have gone over the top, to the detriment of the national aim for future generations. Although this will not go down well with some people, the losers are not today’s adults but today’s children. They are the losers by the way we are operating at present.

I wish the Bill well. I hope that the committee will get on with it under the crushing procedures it has to work to. In my view, the line should already be half way up or down the country.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

If the Home Office were to come along with a whole range of those clauses as proposed in our Select Committee report, I would be the first to commend them and to propose them. In the political climate coming up to the election, it may not be possible to produce those clauses and get the consent of both Houses of Parliament. There may be time, but there is severe political difficulty in trying to bounce those new clauses on an unsuspecting public or legislature at this stage.

I congratulate my noble friend on some other key issues in his proposed new clause. He is right to dump all those extraneous public bodies which our committee was very concerned about. The Home Secretary repeatedly says, and rightly so, that she needs the data Bill to tackle terrorism, paedophilia and serious crime. That is the mantra. The committee agreed, but there should not be 600-odd public authorities in the Bill which are allowed to use some of the powers. They do not have the full powers of MI5 and M16—of course not—but it tarnishes the importance of the big players getting access to data if local councils are in there. Of course local councils say that serious crime is involved. They say that fly-tipping is not just someone chucking an old mattress over the hedge of a farmer’s field because gangs are making millions from it, so it is serious crime and local councils want to be in there. I say that they should use other measures rather than a Bill which has constantly been touted as dealing with paedophiles, terrorists and serious crime. In that case, the organisation which is responsible for putting the little lion on British eggs should not be included either. It is: it made a case to be included because apparently, if it is done improperly or wrongly, the EU may cut off £20 million of our funds, and therefore it is serious crime. A distinction has to be made between serious crime related to gun running, people trafficking and big money and the rest of crime.

My noble friend has included the police and the two security services. My committee recommended that we should include the National Crime Agency, HMRC, which also does a lot of work on this, the United Kingdom Border Agency—or whatever we call it now—and the FSA, whatever that is called now too. Those big bodies make up 99% of all requests for data. The other 1% are all the extraneous other bodies.

The committee also made some other very important recommendations which touched on many other aspects of my noble friend’s proposed new clauses. The committee believed that the SPOC—single point of contact—system is far better than anyone ever expected. Nearly all of us on the Joint Committee felt that we could not have the SPOC system as it would be one policeman going up to another and saying, “Hey, Sarge, sign this on the nod and we’ll get access to data”. When the committee visited the Metropolitan Police, we were delighted—perhaps I should have said amazed first—to find that the system was exceptionally good and exceptionally well run and should be no cause for concern. The police, being the police, of course invented a computer program. No one officer can move on to the next stage to authorise the collection of data until all the boxes have been filled in—not ticked, but filled in. Then another policeman has to review it. In some ways, we should have guessed that the inevitable bureaucracy of the police would come up with a system which was pretty fool-proof and pretty safe. In fact, the committee recommended that the police system was so good that the other extraneous organisations should go through the police and the system should go out to tender. I hope the Met would get it. If the Met got that tender, it would be running a rather good SPOC system in the rest of the country. I hope that placates the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Condon, because I am opposed to some of the rest of the proposed new clauses.

If we go ahead with my noble friend’s proposed new clauses, I am very concerned that we will hit a huge storm of criticism that we are introducing the snoopers’ charter by the back door.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

So far, no one who has spoken in this debate has referred to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 99. It is the sunset clause for 31 December next year. So it will go, but it will go because the other legalisation goes anyway. In other words, after the election, we know that both Houses have got to spend a lot of time on this because of the sunset clause. Surely putting the sunset clause in this group, plus the other amendments from the Home Office, meets a lot of the objections that anyone could make to this because this is not a free-for-all for ever. We are legislating to say that at the end of next year it goes and Parliament has to replace it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

I do not want to delay the Minister, but let us not beat about the bush. I do not speak for anybody other than myself, but I listened to every single speech, and those opposed to these amendments seem to be in favour of them being amended in line with the views of the committee that looked at the draft Bill. Will the Minister go back to the Home Secretary after this debate and make the request on behalf of this House for us to see, if not the draft Bill, the amendments to the amendments by Wednesday or Thursday this week, so that this House can make its mind up as to whether or not it wants to debate them and ask the other place? At the end of the day, Parliament has to decide but, as he knows, we are up against a time limit. Will he go back and say to the Home Secretary—these need not be his views, as he can just say he is the Minister with the message—that the House has asked whether it can see this information in time to do something with it?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before my noble friend responds, and without making any comment about whether we should or should not be shown things, I do not think it is appropriate to characterise all the opposition to these amendments as solely being about the way in which they have been put. My noble friends have made points of principle which we should not ignore.